Senator Eric Schmitt@SenEricSchmitt · May 8, 2026

Virginia's map just got struck down. Is California next? California's "mapmaker" drew its new maps to "ensure" that…

11 tweets1 min read♥ 8.8Koriginal

Summary

California's redistricting maps were allegedly drawn with race as the predominant factor to create Latino-majority districts, violating the Supreme Court's recent Callais decision which prohibits using the Voting Rights Act as justification for racial gerrymandering. The state's mapmaker explicitly stated his priority was creating a new Latino majority district and bragged about increasing Latino voting power, providing direct evidence of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Summarized by ThreadOut AI from the full thread. May miss nuance — read the thread below.

#1
Virginia's map just got struck down. Is California next? California's "mapmaker" drew its new maps to "ensure" that racially gerrymandered "VRA seats are bolstered in order to make them most effective." That's illegal under Callais. @AAGDhillon: Here's how we can do it. 🧵
#2
California state law requires an "independent" Commission to draw its district maps. But Newsom and state Legislature Dems overrode the Commission last year to gerrymander. That meant hiring a "mapmaker"—Paul Mitchell—to do it. But he drew an illegal racial gerrymander.
#3
Before SCOTUS's recent Callais decision, courts interpreted the VRA to effectively *require* racial quotas in gerrymandering. As Justice Thomas explained, that was “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.”
#4
SCOTUS therefore corrected its VRA jurisprudence to align it with our color-blind Constitution: Gerrymandering may only consider race in order to undo a prior racial gerrymander--no more racial quotas.
#5
Callais means states can no longer use the VRA as an excuse to draw districts to advantage some races over others. Instead, the standard constitutional prohibition on racial gerrymandering applies. Here's how the Court explained that standard works in a prior case:
#6
California's gerrymander flunks that constitutional test. First, we know that "race was the predominant factor motivating" various districts because California's "mapmaker" expressly said so. Second, Callais says that simply invoking the VRA is not a valid reason to use race.
#7
While the circumstantial evidence that California used race to draw the districts is strong, the direct evidence is even clearer. That's because the state's mapmaker said his "number one" priority was creating a new "Latino majority" district. Seriously. He actually said that.
#8
If that wasn't enough, the mapmaker then bragged about racial gerrymandering on social media. He boasted that he drew the map to "increase Latino voting power" and add "one more Latino influence district." That's a clear admission of unconstitutionally racial gerrymandering.
#9
How did the mapmaker and state legislators justify California's racial gerrymander? By invoking the VRA! This is exactly what Callais prohibits: using the VRA as a pretext to racially gerrymander to advantage one race over others.
#10
Democrats are obsessed with dividing Americans by race. That's why enforcing the SFFA v. Harvard ruling that affirmative action is unconstitutional has required more litigation--including by DOJ. Callais will require the same type of litigation push.
Senator Eric Schmitt@SenEricSchmitt · Apr 30, 2026
This is what oversight is for. The Civil Rights Division should enforce the VRA as an anti-discrimination law—not as a racial districting mandate. The Constitution prohibits sorting Americans by race. DOJ should act accordingly. Read the rest of my letter here:
#11
The VA Supreme Court courageously upheld its state constitution by blocking Dem's illegal gerrymander. But Callais confirms that California and other states have illegal racial gerrymanders under federal law. We must fully enforce VRA Section 2 and Callais before the midterms.